About your Search

20130201
20130228
STATION
MSNBCW 19
LANGUAGE
English 19
Search Results 0 to 18 of about 19 (some duplicates have been removed)
senator from a red state, a decorated and wounded combat veteran nominated to lead the pentagon while we are at war. republicans have never before felt the need to filibuster a cabinet member in the history of the country but apparently now this is the time and this is the guy worth waiting 224 years to spring it on. it has never happened before, but why not now? heck. the white house is not pleased. "today's action runs against both the majority will of the senate and our nation's interest. this waste of time is not without consequence. we have 66,000 men and women deployed in afghanistan, and we need our new secretary of defense to be a part of significant decisions about how we bring that war to a responsible end. next week in brussels, the united states will meet with our allies to talk about the transition in afghanistan at the nato defense ministerial, and our next secretary of defense should be there. for the sake of national security, it's time to stop playing politics with our department of defense and to move beyond the distractions and delay. allow this war hero an up or down
? the pentagon. >> we're only a few weeks away from this. >> it doesn't make any political sense. >> it would be brutal for everybody. >> devastatiing effects on the economy. >> pushes us into a second recession, something so terri e terrible -- >> all right. settle down. >> they recognize that the sequester is a bad idea. >> i don't like the sequester. >> we see the republicans playing games. >> this is the wrong time for sequest sequestration. >> both sides are sort of okay with it. >> doing nothing is easier than doing something. >> republicans say cuts but no taxes. >> these cuts cost job. >> they don't even want to talk about it. >> who are the monsters who came up with the sequestration idea? >> guess what, they all support it. congress put it into place to force themselves to agree. >> dumbe esest blame game in washington. >>> it's time for another round of republican would you rather. we'll call this the sequester edition. today's question, would you rather go up against al qaeda or grover norquist? republican senator lindsey graham said al qaeda would love the defense cuts in the se
sort of think they have an advantage. but what is getting cut? the pentagon is taking the brunt of these cuts. certainly the commander in chief doesn't want that to happen. a ton of democrats are quite fine with seeing pentagon spending cuts. so, you know, it's sort of like nobody really wants it to happen but both sides are sort of okay with it. >> to the point of who might have the upper hand, charles krauthammer wrote this. obama's bluff is being called and he's the desperate water. what should they do? nothing. cheryl, there are others who are saying that if this happens, at least we get those cuts. what's the feeling on capitol hill right now? >> well, i think there are some republicans who are fairly public about the fact that they do not want to see the seek questions sister cuts go through. a lot of these republicans represent the heavy military presence, a the lo lot of defen contractors in their area. generally ryan is right, they don't want to see the cuts go through but they are kind of preparing for it, that this is going to happen. they view the president's offer f
will oppose hagel no matter what. >> i believe he's the wrong person to lead the pentagon at this perilous and consequential time. >> tea party senator ted cruz tried to gin up an old conservative bogeyman. >> i'd like to draw your attention to an interview you did in 2009 with al jazeera. >> but here's the real reason. these guys don't want chuck hagel in the defense department. this is the bomb bomb iran crowd. you see, mccain and graham have led the charge for possible war against the iranians as well as syria. chuck hagel sees war as an absolute last resored. it that's why president obama picked him. the two share similar views in philosophy as the obama administration attempts to define the role of the united states in the transition to a post-superpower world. their philosophy is this. the united states must get out of these massive land wars, iraq and afghanistan, and if possible avoid future large-scale war. despite all of the posturing and starcraft, hagel's nomination, well, is not in jeopardy. not one senator who previously voiced support for hagel has changed his or her mind. i
, that this sequester is -- because of its sort of blunder bust approach that it does not permit the pentagon to make intelligent choices about what is needed, so it is going to get to readiness. ready city council what we need. >> this is the absurdness of washington. >> the white house proposed the -- >> proposing to get agreement on this. now the new strategy is, yeah, but you can't let that sequester happen because the spending cuts would be so awful when, in fact, there are democrats like dick durbin who will be on the program sunday who have said he doesn't really have a problem with the amount of spending cuts in the pentagon. it's a matter of how you go about doing it. republicans i think also have some leverage here by saying, you know, if you really get us down to it, if have to swallow these spending cuts, we're going take them because that might be good. you got your revenues there. zoolt sequester, we don't like it, but before it on. >> there's a lot of pain. particularly if are you from virginia and you have military cuts coming down your way, this is tough. spending cuts are tough. the
at the pentagon. hagel said he was honored to be the new defense secretary and that the pentagon does have a tough road ahead of it including dealing with sequestration. >> we need to deal with this reality. we've got ahead of us a lot of challenges. they are going to define much of who we are. not this institution only but our country. >> meantime, we do have major developments on the sequester issue today. the white house is saying that president obama will hold a meeting on friday with top congressional leaders on both sides including speaker boehner, nancy pelosi, harry reid, and mitch mcconnell. you would think maybe he could grab them on the side of the rosa parks statue right now and bring this up. they're all together. so it's the first time in years, though, this year that the president has a face-to-face meeting with republican leaders where they will directly discuss sequestration. i say again he's right there. this is a good moment. they're all applauding. why not talk about it now? we bring in today's political power panel. what do you think? why not talk about it now? can we put the
. >> you heard chuck haegle say, that he saw that film. two days after that, he changed the pentagon policy and announced that rape allegations would be moved out of the direct line of command that has been so successful of suppressing these allegations and each branch of the military will have a special unit for these allegations. this is something that the secretary of defense has the power to do on his own authority. but most senators have no interest in that. in this rape crisis in the american military and they wasted their time today talking about policy questions that have nothing to do with being secretary of defense. joining me now alex wagner and eugene robinson. >> alex, in our military today, women are actually putting their lives at risk simply bien listing. and we have to sit there today and watch the senators wander all over today about policies that have nothing to do with being secretary of defense when they have this crime crisis right in front of them. >> the reasons for that are two-fold. one is violence perpetrated against women have been ignored by the congress of rece
to overthrow the assad regime. the plan had received support from the pentagon, the cia, secretary clinton. but ultimately it was the white house that turned down the idea. >> both of you agreed with petraeus and clinton that we should start looking at military assistance in syria, is that correct? >> that was our position. i do want to say, senator, that obviously there were a number of factors that were reversed here that ultimately led to the president's decision to make it nonlethal. i supported his decision in the end. but the answer to your question is yes. >> for both of you? >> yes. >> "the wall street journal" says the white house was concerned about which rebels could be trusted with arms. was also worried about the risk of drawing the united states into another military conflict. but it was questions over benghazi that led to the most heated moments with secretary panetta and general dempsey defending the administration's response to the deadly raid on the u.s. consulate. >> for you to testify that our posture would not allow a rapid response, our posture was not there because w
the pentagon, his answer was simple. no. but i kept asking. i am persistent. that's how michelle married me. i just kept at it, and it is a testament to leon's patriotism, to his sense of duty that he agreed to serve on this one last tour. and perhaps it was the memory during world war ii of his parents opening up their homes to gis headed for the pacific. perhaps it was because leon served himself as a young lieutenant in the army. perhaps it was the experience of watching his youngest son deploy to afghanistan. what we do know is this, as our nation's 23rd secretary of defense, every action leon panetta has taken, every decision that he has made, has been with one goal in mind -- taking care of our sons and our daughters in uniform and keeping america safe. and just think of the progress under his watch. because we ended the war in iraq and are winding down the war in afghanistan, our troops are coming home, and next year our war in afghanistan will come to an end. we've put the core of al qaeda on the path to defeat, and we've been relentless against its affiliates. because we have a sacred
to some of the employees, civilian employees of the pentagon and some other places. the 85 billion in cuts is through the rest of the fiscal year through september 30th and we're not even talking a full year. it's 50/50 between the defense cuts and the discretionary am doestic spending cuts and the warnings that we're hearing from experts on national security are very severe and vehement. they have told us that this will be a very significant damage. >> let's put the list up here, alex. the white house put out this fact sheet yesterday on the most damaging effects of the cuts that are supposed to go into effect march 1st. 17,000 education jobs at risk. 70,000 kids being kicked off head start. nearly 400,000 mentally ill patients not receiving health care and small business loan guarantees being cut up to $540 million, roughly. the white house did not mention the massive military cuts. what was the strategy there? >> well, look. i think that for the white house, the strategy here is to emphasize that basically every american would be impacted in some way. if you emphasize defense cuts and i
there's so many installations of military and defense workers. the pentagon noted more than 700,000 civilian military workers, department of defense workers, will effectively lose 20% of their pay. they will have to work one less day a week if this goes in effect. as one observer put it, it's like a low speed car crash heading our way. >> peter alexander from 1600. peter, thank you, sir. >>> wednesday morning the supreme court will hear arguments in a case called shelby county versus holder. it's a case that could determine the future of the landmark voting rights act of 1965. to find out what's at stake, we're going to go ahead and take a reality check on this sunday. peter bacon an msnbc contributor and editor of the grio. let's start at the beginning, if you will, for folks not following the story perhaps. what's at stake here on wednesday? >> the key thing at stake here is this is a law -- this is 1965, that lays out basically for a lot of southern states, states that had a history of discrimination, they had -- the big portion is they have to usually pre-clear any law about
see it as an opportunity to slim down the pentagon while republicans are applauding real efforts to shrink the government. however, the white house continues to paint a dire picture. attorney general eric holder says the across the board cuts will make the nation -- listen to me -- less safe. >> oh my lord. >> the justice department is going to lose 9% of its budget between now and september 30th. we'll lose $1.6 billion. there are not going to be as many fbi agents, atf agents, dea agents, prosecutors able to do their jobs as we would like them to do. this is something that will have an impact on the safety of this country and anybody who says that's not true is either lying or saying something that runs contrary to the facts. >> cramer, real quick? >> the sequester is a real bad word. sequester because 99% of american people don't understand it. i hate to use the word on "mad money." i hate it. sequester. >> don't use it. >> you can't. >> birthday cake. we can rename it birthday cake. >> fiscal cliff worked. it had great imagery. >> did you see the story on the front page of "t
is that the pentagon signed deals before the end of the year worth about $5 billion to make sure that the money was flowing before the sequester. >> $400 billion for this one weapon program. >> that's a lot of dough. >> that is a lot of dough. the cover is "the once and future pope." rick stengel, thanks for being with us. >>> coming up next, the first pictures of olympian and double amputee sprinter oscar pistorius after he's accused of shooting and killing his girlfriend. this is a guy who was the hero of london, sort of the field-good story last summer. now he is in jail accused of murder. we're going to have the latest straight ahead on "morning joe." [ woman ] ring. ring. progresso. i just served my mother-in-law your chicken noodle soup but she loved it so much... i told her it was homemade. everyone tells a little white lie now and then. but now she wants my recipe [ clears his throat ] [ softly ] she's right behind me isn't she? [ male announcer ] progresso. you gotta taste this soup. [ clears his throat ] by earning a degree from capella she'more iuniversity, isn't she? you'll have the
Search Results 0 to 18 of about 19 (some duplicates have been removed)